Group-Based and Individually Delivered LiFE: Content Evaluation and Predictors of Training Response – A Dose-Response Analysis

Nerz, Corinna; Kramer-Gmeiner, Franziska; Jansen, Carl-Philipp; Labudek, Sarah; Klenk, Jochen; Becker, Clemens; Schwenk, Michael

doi:10.2147/cia.s359150

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 59 publications

(107 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Those people, based on individual preferences, may still opt for the individual program despite being more costly. For example, some people may prefer individual supervision and learning the program in their own home where the activities could be adapted to the individual conditions and are therefore more easy to integrate into everyday life, whereas for others the social aspects of a group program (e.g., motivation through peer support) may be more important [ 13 , 14 ]. Moreover, the individual approach in LiFE could be more suitable for people for whom participation in group programs would be difficult, for example, because of physical and transport limitations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A detailed description of the interventions (including a TIDieR checklist) can be found in the study protocol [10]. The development of the conceptual gLiFE framework and a content analysis as well as a qualitative analysis of the acceptance of the two program versions were published separately [13][14][15].…”

Section: Interventions and Intervention Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When it comes to individual preferences and perceived benefits beyond clinical effectiveness, one could assume that the WTP of such a program differs by mode of administration. For example, gLiFE may be perceived as more valuable since it involves a social component (e.g., increased motivation through peer support) or, on the other hand, LiFE might be preferred as the individual training in the participant’s home may be perceived as an advantage for implementing the LiFE activities into daily routines [ 13 , 14 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In both programs, falls were reduced and physical activity was improved, while gLiFE was less costly in terms of intervention costs [11,12]. Moreover, a content evaluation showed that both program versions were similar in terms of perceived safety, intensity of the exercises, integrability, and acceptance [13]. To our knowledge, no study has assessed how much participants are willing to pay for an exercise program aiming to maintain physical function and activity and reduce the risk of falling.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Willingness to pay for a group and an individual version of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise program from a participant perspective

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Perceived benefits of intervention programs from a participant perspective can be examined by assessing their willingness to pay (WTP). Aiming to support decision-makers in their decision to implement a fall prevention program, this study examined (1) the WTP for a group-based and an individually delivered fall prevention program, (2) which factors influence WTP, and (3) whether the WTP exceeds the intervention costs. Methods WTP was elicited using Payment Cards from 237 individuals who participated in a randomized non-inferiority trial (LiFE-is-LiFE) comparing a group version of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise program (gLiFE) with the individually delivered version (LiFE). Linear regression models were used to examine factors associated with WTP. The net benefit for (g)LiFE was calculated as the difference between WTP and intervention costs, assuming different scenarios of intervention costs (varying group sizes of gLiFE) and hypothetical subsidy levels by a payer (€0, €50, or €75). Results The mean WTP was €196 (95% CI [172, 221]) for gLiFE and €228 (95% CI [204, 251]) for LiFE. In the linear regression model, WTP was significantly associated with delivery format (−€32, 95% CI [− 65, − 0.2], for gLiFE) and net household income (+ 68€, 95% CI [23, 113], for ≥€3000 compared to <€2000). The net benefit for gLiFE was positive in most cases. Due to higher intervention costs of LiFE compared to gLiFE (€298 vs. €113), the net benefit for LiFE was negative for the majority of the sample, even at a subsidy of €75. Conclusion The results provide insight into how valuable the interventions are perceived by the participants and thereby may be used by decision-makers as complement to cost-effectiveness analyses. WTP for both programs was generally high, probably indicating that participants perceived the intervention as quite valuable. However, further research is needed on the WTP and net benefit of fall prevention programs, as results relied on the specific context of the LiFE-is-LiFE trial.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Interventions and Intervention Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Willingness to pay for a group and an individual version of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise program from a participant perspective

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our results provide no insights into levels of habit strength among the single LiFE activities. Another study based on the parent trial revealed differences in the training frequency of the different LiFE activities [48], which could have resulted in the different levels of habit strength. Furthermore, we omitted the assessment of habit strength at baseline because participants had difficulties answering the questions on habit strength in the pretesting phase and had not (yet) engaged in any of the target behaviors (i.e., LiFE exercises).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in Psychological Determinants of Behavior Change after Individual versus Group-Based Lifestyle-integrated Fall Prevention: Results from the LiFE-is-LiFE Trial

Labudek¹,

Fleig²,

Jansen³

et al. 2022

Gerontology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) intervention has been shown to promote physical activity in fall-prone older adults. However, the underlying mechanisms of how LiFE functions remain unclear. This study compares the effects of the individual and group-based LiFE formats on psychological determinants of behavior change derived from the health action process approach, habit formation theory, and self-determination theory. Methods: Secondary analysis on basis of the randomized, non-inferiority LiFE-is-LiFE trial were performed. Questionnaire data on psychological determinants were obtained from older adults (M = 78.8 years, range 70–95) who took part in either the individual (n = 156) or the group-based (n = 153) LiFE intervention. Measurement points varied from three to six times, and from baseline (T1) up to a 12-month follow-up (T6). A generalized linear mixed model was specified for each determinant. Results: Both LiFE and gLiFE participants reported lower levels of motivational determinants at T6. LiFE participants showed significantly higher values of action planning and coping planning at T6. Participants in both formats showed increased levels of action control at T6, whereas participants’ habit strength decreased post-intervention but then stabilized over time. LiFE participants showed higher levels of autonomy, competence, and relatedness throughout the study, but levels of intrinsic motivation did not differ between formats and from T1 to T6. Conclusion: In both formats, but especially in the individual LiFE, the behavior change techniques used affected volitional rather than motivational or general determinants of behavior change. Habit strength as an important indicator of the sustainability of the LiFE exercises stabilized over time, indicating that participants, at least partly, sustained their formed habits long-term.

show abstract

Lebensstilintegriertes funktionelles Training zur Sturzprävention

Endress,

Schwenk,

Werner

et al. 2023

Z Gerontol Geriat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Group-Based and Individually Delivered LiFE: Content Evaluation and Predictors of Training Response – A Dose-Response Analysis

Cited by 5 publications

References 59 publications

Willingness to pay for a group and an individual version of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise program from a participant perspective

Willingness to pay for a group and an individual version of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise program from a participant perspective

Changes in Psychological Determinants of Behavior Change after Individual versus Group-Based Lifestyle-integrated Fall Prevention: Results from the LiFE-is-LiFE Trial

Lebensstilintegriertes funktionelles Training zur Sturzprävention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About